2010年4月10日 星期六

Who are Taiwanese anyway

[A map of Aboriginal tribal areas in Taiwan including both Plains and Mountain tribes.]

Here is a view from Danshui:

It is interesting to see the search for Taiwanese identity continues in earnest. Some in Taiwan now disclaim their Han heritage and embrace ever so tentatively that of the Aborigines. While there is a true desire to know, there is also a separatist political undercurrent in both inter- and intra-national senses.

This disclaimer, however, seems to have built upon a deliberate misunderstanding of the terminology used in a 1905 census survey - the first of several conducted by the Japanese.

There were several people categories in this census: (1) Japanese from mainland Japan; (2) residents of Taiwan (based on domicile and residence history); and (3) foreigners and others. Category (3) included "清國人Qing Chinese" and Koreans. It is the designation of this "Qing Chinese" that has prompted some to declare that it means the Han people then residing in Taiwan were foreigners. And according to the census, these people were very few in number (8,083). The vast majority in category (2) therefore can be presumed to be Aboriginal.

To support this Aboriginal theory, it is necessary to minimize the number of the Han people. More theories therefore must be and have been created. To name a few:

(1) Taiwan residents' being originally from Hokkien or Canton was a fraud perpetrated upon the Aborigines by the Qing;(2) When the Ming-Cheng soldiers were being exiled to the penal colonies in China, 12,724 of them were too destitute to go, hence the Han population in Taiwan should start with this number;(3) Because of the ban by the Qing on the Han family/female immigration to Taiwan, the 2,979,018 Taiwanese by 1905 must be of Aboriginal descent (i.e., how else could the Han men propagate);(4) The arrival of any number of Han Chinese during the Qing era is deemed unlikely because of the difficulties in crossing the Taiwan Straits;(5) The prefectural archives in Hokkien show only a handful of emigres to Taiwan during Qing rule;(6) A white-cell HLA antigen study suggests that 85% of Taiwanese have Aboriginal genetic markers; and so on.

Despite these arguments, however, the "清國人" fundamentally can only refer to those arriving from China after the Japanese take-over in 1895, i.e., they were citizens of the then 大清帝國, the Qing Empire.

The 1905 Japanese survey was based on three administrative levels of (1) 廳 (prefectures); (2) 堡/里/市/嶼/澳 (cities and towns), and (3) 街/庄/村/社/鄉 (neighborhoods), all of which inherited from the Qing era. A survey done in 1893 (光緒十九年) showed a total population of 2,545,731, up from 1,944,737 in 1811 (嘉慶十六年). The surveyed areas were nearly identical, i.e., the central highlands and Taitung were excluded [except Taitung was included in the aforementioned 1893 census with a total of 6,000]. The map below is from the Japanese colonial period showing mountain Aboriginal territories in different colors - census-taking was conducted outside of these areas. The boundary markers between the Han and the mountain Aboriginal regions throughout Taiwan, etched in stone, were in existence since 1722 (康熙六十一年) if not earlier. In other words, the census data were a collection of both Han people and Plains Aborigines with Han surnames. It has long been argued that the Plains Aborigines lived among the Han. This is true but it only applies to the occasional few as individuals. The reality is that villages in Taiwan were segregated starting in the Ming-Cheng era.

During Ming-Cheng, the administrative districts of southwest Taiwan [the Greater Tainan area] actually separated the Han settlements [民社] from the Aboriginal hamlets [番社]. A Ming-Cheng study map copyrighted by Academia Sinica can be found here. [Note: The lone Han settlement in northern Taiwan was Danshui, then called the "上淡水城".]

This distinct segregation, especially in the rural areas, has continued throughout Qing and Japanese rules up until today. Urban areas eventually grew from Han administrative/population centers; however, there have never been any cities dominated by the Aborigines. It is questionable if inter-marriages were necessarily wide-spread or even necessary at all in the first place.In 1666, between 150-200,000 Han people had already settled in Taiwan. This number would change owing to the many subsequent wars but certainly not to the paltry 8,083 by 1905.

Here is a good example accounting for the arrival of Han settlers: "Research on the Development of Niu-Ch'ou River Basin Before 1895" a PhD thesis by 黃阿有, NCKU, 2007. [Note: the Niu-Ch'ou牛稠溪流域 refers to an area northeast of Chia-yi City.] A direct quote from the summary: "...There were some Chinese villages in the 17th century and by the start of Ch’ing’s rule, it was estimated that there were 32 Chinese villages and 8 garrisons. Land developer villages grown to 100 in 1683-1722, and 76 added in 1723-1795. In the end of the 18th century, approximately 97% of the villages had Han developers. This revealed that the quarantine policies in the early Ch’ing rule didn’t work well." This was the general trend of the Han population growth in Taiwan, i.e., a vast influx of Han immigrants over time.

Our simple-minded observations:

(1) While intermarriages between the Han and the Plains Aborigines clearly had taken place - to what extent and whether confined to a certain era/area, however, are all still unknown;(2) The request for adopting a Chinese surname by the Aborigines had been officially granted during Qing, but not the ancestral family history lock stock and barrel, that was not part of the deal;(3) The immigration of Han Chinese after Shi-lang's death is also a historical fact notwithstanding the potentially unkept archives in the war-torn Hokkien during the Qing era; and(4) The HLA antigen study simply means that most Taiwanese have Southern Mongoloid traits; unfortunately the data have been used, erroneously, to imply an Aboriginal ancestry of the Han Taiwanese - these two groups merely share some of the same traits as do many other southern Chinese/Asian peoples.

Have we forgotten anything? Ah yes, the 1905 survey questionnaires also included an item on foot-binding - strictly a Chinese custom. Maybe the number of females with bound-feet can provide much more reliable information on the proportion of Han vs that of the Aboriginal women. Of course, we suppose the quarrelsome ones can still argue that the Plains Aboriginal women (and the Hakka women) were foolish enough to submit to this barbaric practice.

In the long history of the Taiwanese, there have been many groups each dominating at a different time and/or place. And one can always cite numbers and records [including this blog] but that may pertain to only one specific part of the history. Indeed the Indian fable of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind.

Still, incessant discussion without any hard evidence is counter-productive. For those who can trace their family origin unequivocally, the heritage is never an issue. Others especially those who own a Chinese last name yet were/are from an Aboriginal 村 or area may still need a definitive answer. A large-scale forensic DNA analysis (preferably mitochondrial), to resolve who the great great great great-grandma really was, should be done to remove all lingering doubts.

(An elderly Aboriginal woman in Han dress wearing a wrist bracelet sitting in a wicker chair. She was probably of the 賽夏 - not the 泰雅族 - identified by the tattoos on her forehead but none on the cheeks. It is difficult to see her unbound feet in this photo taken in the 1950s in 苗栗Miaoli.)

This still will not be the end, though. Little realized is a much bigger issue with two opposing views: One side proposes that the Aboriginal land ownership can go all the way back to before the Dutch occupation, and the other advocates that the Aborigines were slaves with no property rights who were shipped in by the Dutch. In other words, the question of "who are Taiwanese" will eventually escalate into "who owns Taiwan". Then all of a sudden we will be confronted with China's asserting her sovereignty rights over Taiwan. The consequence can be a very unpleasant 鷸蚌相爭,漁翁得利. The intensity of the separatist debate now will certainly pale in comparison.

20 則留言:

'...the other advocates that the Aborigines were slaves with no property rights who were shipped in by the Dutch.'

I've never heard of this proposal before. The aborigines have been here for thousands of years. That's why the Dutch had war with them in order to make them submissive. BTW, Quataong, a chief who began his ruling over the central section of Taiwan before the Dutch came is recorded by Dutch and even other foreigners. Therefore, it is not imaginable to say the aborigines were shipped in by the Dutch.

Secondly, there are historical records indicating that both Ming-Cheng and Qing rulers bestowed Han surnames and Han family pedigrees to aborigines who were willing to be Sinicized. Therefore, the surname and the family pedigree could not really constitute evidence of one's descent.

Lastly, Han people is not a group based on blood relationship but a cultural and linguistic group (well...not even a homogeneous group for there are cultural and linguistic diversity in it). In the Chinese history, we can see that many races of people were Sinicized because of being conquered or voluntary submission. I don't think anthropologically there is a Han lineage exists.

(1) Land disputes between Han settlers and Aborigines have already begun. And one of the arguments from the Han side is exactly so: that the Dutch brought with them Black slaves who were the ancestors of [some of] the Aborigines. The hidden agenda of the debate on the origin of the Han-Taiwanese is in fact the land ownership.

(2) The more reason why a well-designed and well-executed mitochondrial DNA test is important.

(3) That seems to suggest that the assimilated Pinpuhuan are also Han, anthropologically speaking.

Cited: '(3) That seems to suggest that the assimilated Pinpuhuan are also Han, anthropologically speaking.'

If the Han ethnic group is not a homogeneous one that people in it cannot even communicate for their different mother tongues, then I think it is necessary to deliberate on the definition. For a heterogeneous group like this, I can see no reason why the Japanese, Korean, and the Vietnamese who are also historically and culturally Sinicized in depth cannot be counted among the Han ethnic group. The answer may be political, but not anthropological.

In other words, the so called Han people nowadays is more or less defined by political boundary, or to say a fictitious identity of heritage. In the former sense, people who live in China that do not belong to the minor ethnic groups are all counted as Han. In the second sense, anyone who admitted that his ancestors were from China would be qualified to be listed in this group, no matter he/she lives in Singapore, Malaysia, Canada, Taiwan or else where. What's intriguing is that people often use 'Chinese' instead of 'Han' in the second sense, but they would intentionally ignore that Japanese and Koreans also shares Chinese lineage, at least partly. And this indicates the term 'Han' is based on a more political but not any other objective criteria.

The question is: if Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese have the right to say they are not Han people, then why the people in Taiwan should be deprived of this right, especially the term in discussion looks just like a politics-oriented one which feeds the ambition of the Sino Empire?

"And this indicates the term 'Han' is based on a more political but not any other objective criteria." Fundamentally, it is based on ethnicity which can be very diverse but not on politics (or anthropology, for that matter). This is precisely why the "Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese have the right to say they are not Han people", and in each nation, there are still sizable ethnic Chinese population who do not identify with the natives.

People in Taiwan have not been deprived of the right to say they are not Han at all. Those who are still uncertain are free to further explore. However, it is a lost cause if the motive is to revert to a time when Taiwan was free of Han people. This is the politics that no one will support; instead, it will indeed "feed the ambition of the Sino Empire".

Terms like "aboriginal" and "indigenous") are also politically constructed. We could talk about genetic descent, but what are we going to do about the large numbers (perhaps even a majority, pending reliable genetic testing) of Han AND aboriginal Taiwanese who are mixed? Is it possible to be both aboriginal AND Han? (And in that case, how could an issue like land restitution be handled?)

Taiwan's government prefers to define aboriginal groups according to "culture" (although this is limited to those with certain social or genetic qualifications--it is not possible to "convert"). This leads to the perverse situation in which Han are never expected to maintain particular customs in order to remain Han, but aborigines are. (And if they stop, do they then become Han by default?)

Under the current Chinese nationalist construct, Han=Chinese. The idea of Aborigines grew out of the ATA movement in the mid-80's and "Aborigines" must demonstrate "blood descent", material culture and customs that are determined to be "indigenous" or how indigenes are believed to have been at the time of "first contact". Han=Modern. If indigenous peoples seek to become equals with "Han" they must lose or deny their indigenality. To be indigenous in the ROC means never bridging the gap to gain equality with the state constructed Han identity.

"To be indigenous in the ROC" also means to remain a constitutionally protected minority. The terms Aboriginal and indigenous are non-political; although the terms 高砂族 and 山地同胞 both are. The latter is a reflection of the ambivalence of the ruling gov'ts, or more accurately, a lack of consistent gov't policies, in addressing the minority issue.

Land acquisition by the Han, often through dubious means, has been discouraged by the gov't since Ming-Cheng; unfortunately, the laws were never strictly enforced. Even the gov't, at different levels and times, tended to invoke eminent domain and grabbed lands off the Aborigines. The Aboriginal land loss is real and unjust. However, restitution through lawsuits is still the only way to go. More attorneys working with historians, are needed here.

I would disagree that Aborigine is non-political. The term was chosen out of a political movement from the 1980's to represent perviously disparate peoples who had been classified as 高砂族 and 山地同胞. The therm Aborigine created a single collectivity to better leverage power against the state. In practice the "Aborigine" identity is leveraged in similar terms as the other politically conceived "ethnic groups" (Hoklo, Hakka, Mainlander, Aborigine). By using a capital "A" in Aborigine it designates a level of equality between these political terms. The process of "taming" and "civilizing" is still underway with the ROC constitution as the blueprint for the project. This is more of a problematic coloniality. Land loss for exploitation is still going on. In the aftermath of Morikot the government's solution was to order indigenes to move from their homes that were built after other relocations and live closer to the plains. Of course no indigenous people were consulted on how they could better deal with the situation. Now the mountain is ripe for exploitation. Same old story.

And I disagree with your disagreement. Aborigine or its literal translation 原住民 is non-political, its usage is. On the other hand, translation into 先住民 is political, through and through. A bit of hair-splitting here.

Surprisingly, there has been no legal representation in any of these land "transactions" - an oversight incomprehensible to me. It really does not have to be the same old story.

We have argued about this before. But I think the records are pretty clear in showing that until the last years of the 18th century, immigration of Chinese women was, with the exception of a few years, banned. Yet the population continued to grow. I am not saying the immigration of Chinese women did not happen. Rich people with money would have gotten around the law, but the numbers would've been miniscule. There are some historical accounts of the Ching government cracking down on "inter-marriage" as it was a source of antagonism among Aborigines, one that led to several rebellions in the late 17th century. I'm guessing the crackdowns were for show. I just don't see how you keep Chinese men from marrying / procreating with Aboriginal women when there was such a shortage of Chinese women.

A couple of things to think about. You write: "Still, incessant discussion without any hard evidence is counter-productive. For those who can trace their family origin unequivocally, the heritage is never an issue." Chiang Kai-shek can trace his family origin back to a duke in 1100 BC. If you don't believe me, go down to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall AKA Taiwan Democracy Hall and have a look, because an account is on the wall. Many people in Taiwan simply adopted family origins from others they met. They'd wander into a community and then latch on to individuals with the same surname. In the process, they acquired family histories. I am certain that some of the genealogies existing today are authentic, but others are probably not.

In my opinion, Taiwan belongs to the people that live here and who care about it, regardless of their race or ancestry. "The only thing that matters is that there are all kinds of people living on Taiwan, mixing and creating culture; A shared matrix of symbols, meanings and experience with Taiwan as our center. Well said, Andrew. And I dare say, knowing eyedoc, he agrees.

BTW, what's this about "When the Ming-Cheng soldiers were being exiled to the penal colonies in China, 12,724 of them were too destitute to go, hence the Han population in Taiwan should start with this number?"

This is a good rock-the-boat post. It's a discussion you obviously feel strongly about. Looking forward to more on your input.

"If most Han-Taiwanese are descendants of the Aborigines, then why should there be any constitutional protection of the minority."

That's easy. Most Taiwanese don't understand and wouldn't immediately believe they have Aboriginal blood (if you don't believe me, just do a quick survey of the first 100 you meet on the street); they look upon Aborigines as another people. It's part of the recent education, that sought to indoctrinate Taiwanese. The KMT regime "educated" people here to believe they were Chinese so they would want to invade China and unite with that country. Teaching Taiwanese that 85 percent of them have an Aboriginal blood does not serve this purpose.

I really don't understand #3. I hope you'll do a post on it.

This is a good post. It's something that I've been interested in for years, for all kinds of reasons.

The term 原住民 was chosen by the ATA in 1984 as part of their political movement following the early political reforms of the 1980's. As the KMT's power structure was coming under more frequent assault from the Dang Wai activists the ATA moved on the issue, buttressed by the KMT's inability to strongly oppose the growing political movements in Taiwan. The KMT opposed the new nomenclature as they preferred positioning the indigenous peoples as xian zhu min 先住民 First people, or zao zhu min 早住民, Early People (Ma Ying-jiu still uses these terms). The character "原" was specifically chosen by the ATA to evoke indigenality and lay claim to Taiwan as "our" land in direct opposition to the state. The formulation and its deployment were created in direct response to a political/colonial program and is/was further deployed to achieve a political ends. This is very similar to the way "First Nations" was established to politically unite groups of people who otherwise had little in common other than their experience in dealing with a system that treated them as a single group.

"That was your conclusion that the KMT educated people...? Try to look up what the Taiwanese's view of China was immediately after Aug 15, 1945. We need to sit down and talk some more over beer."

The idea of identity formation (or retention) is interesting to be sure and I get what you're saying. Many Taiwanese, see my wife's grandma, have felt sentimental about Japanese colonialism as a period of stability and growth. I'm not saying that all of the Taiwanese people bought into the KMT b.s., not by any stretch of the imagination. We had protests leading up to 2-28. And the KMT felt threatened enough to impose martial law (on the other hand, I believe this is the only way they understood how to operate). Then there are the movements leading up to Kaohsiung Incident and then the creation of the DPP.

Somehow, the Aboriginal experience and their relevance in development of this Taiwanese consciousness has not been given due attention. This is what I am saying. How is this oversight accounted for?

Looking forward to drinking some more beer with you, eyedoc. Andrew, long time no see; I find your points interesting. I'd like to hook up again some time.

Hi Andrew: Thank you for the explanation and the sources. Even though the original post is an editorial of sorts, serious discussion is naturally welcome.

And Patrick: Great recovery. Your wife's grandma certainly has expressed one of the many sentiments. Another, mostly from the intelligentsia, was to celebrate Taiwan's returning to the bosoms of the motherland.

The "due attention" is really up to the Aboriginal leadership. I happen to think that turning the minority into a majority status is not the way to go.